Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence

B I C F O O T Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence The question of Bigfoot's existence comes down to the claim that "Where there's smoke there's fire. " The evidence suggests that there are enough sources of error that there does nc have to be a hidden creature lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases. BENJAMIN RADFORD hough sightings of the North American Bigfoot date back to the 1830s (Bord 1982), interest in Bigfoot Tgrew rapidly during the second half of the twentieth century. This was spurred on by many magazine articles of the time, most seminally a December 1959 True magazine article describing the discovery of large, mysterious footprints the year before in Bluff Creek, California. A half century later, the question of Bigfoot's existence remains open. Bigfoot is still sought, the pursuit kept alive by a steady stream of sightings, occasional photos or footprint finds, and sporadic media coverage. But what evidence has been gathered over the course of fifty years? And what conclusions can we 4mw from that evidence? / SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Manh/Apr**^ 29 Most Bigfoot investigators favor one theory of Bigfoot's ori- gin or existence and stake their reputations on it, sniping at others who don't share their views. Many times, what one investi- gator sees as clear evidence of Bigfoot another will dismiss out of hand. In July 2000, curious tracks were found on the Lower Hoh Indian Reservation in Washington state. Bigfoot tracker Cliff Crook claimed that die footprints were "for sure a Bigfoot," though Jeffrey Meldrum, an associate professor of bio- logical sciences at Idaho State University (and member of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, BFRO) decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue the matter (Big Disagreement Afoot 2000). A set of tracks found in Oregon's Blue Mountains have also been die source of controversy within the community. Grover Krantz maintains that they constitute among the best evidence for Bigfoot, yet longtime researcher Rene Dahinden claimed that "any village idiot can see [they] are fake, one hundred percent fake" (Dennett 1994). And while many Bigfoot researchers stand by the famous 16 Figure 1. Casts from two alleged Bigfoot encounters. The cast on the left is from a mm Patterson film (showing a large manlike creature crossing a Louisiana Bigfoot, tho on© on the right is from California. Photo by Benjamin Radford. clearing) as genuine (including Dahinden, who shared the film's copyright), others including Crook join skeptics in calling it a 1. Eyewitness Accounts hoax. In 1999, Crook found what he claims is evidence in the Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes comprise the bulk of film of a bell-shaped fastener on the hip of the alleged Bigfoot, Bigfoot evidence. This sort of evidence is also the weakest. evidence that he suggests may be holding the ape costume in place Lawyers, judges, and psychologists are well aware that eyewit- (Dahinden claimed the object is matted feces) (Hubbell 1999). ness testimony is notoriously unreliable. As Ben Roesch, edi- Regardless of which theories researchers subscribe to, the tor of The Cryptozoo/ogical Review, noted in an article in question of Bigfoot's existence comes down to evidence— and Fortean Times, "Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal there is plenty of it. Indeed, there are reams of documents evidence. [WJhile physical phenomena can be tested and about Bigfoot—filing cabinets overflowing with thousands of systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they sighting reports, analyses, and theories. Photographs have been are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because taken of everything from the alleged creature to odd tracks left of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus in snow to twisted branches. Collections exist of dozens or untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable hundreds of footprint casts from all over North America. and are not part of the scientific process. Also, reports usu- There is indeed no shortage of evidence. ally take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by The important criterion, however, is not the quantity of the untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewit- evidence, but the quality of it. Lots of poor quality evidence nesses, and can mistake known animals for supposed cryptids does not add up to strong evidence, just as many cups of weak [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sight- coffee cannot be combined into a strong cup of coffee. ing. Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence" Bigfoot evidence can be broken down into four general (Roesch 2001). types: eyewitness sightings, footprints, recordings, and somatic Bigfoot investigators acknowledge that lay eyewitnesses can samples (hair, blood, etc.). Some researchers (notably Loren be mistaken, but counter that expert testimony should be Coleman 1999) also place substantial emphasis on folklore and given much more weight. Consider Coleman's (1999) passage indigenous legends. The theories and controversies within each reflecting on expert eyewitness testimony: "[E]ven those scien- category are too complex and detailed to go into here. I present tists who have seen the creatures with their own eyes have been merely a brief overview and short discussion of each; anyone reluctant to come to terms with their observations in a scien- interested in the details is encouraged to look further. tific manner." As an example he gives the account of "mycolo- gist Gary Samuels" and his brief sighting of a large primate in Benjamin Radford has been to the area of Bigfoot and wildman the forest of Guyana. The implication is that this exacting man sightings in North and Central America, and was interviewed on of science accurately observed, recalled, and reported his expe- mysterious creatures for The Ultimate Ten Mysteries, which rience. And he may have. But Samuels is a scientific expert on appeared on The Learning Channel. He is co-author of Hoaxes, tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not Myths, and Manias: Why We Need Critical Thinking, to he identifying large primates in poor conditions. Anyone, published by Prometheus Books later this year. degteed or not, can be mistaken. 3 0 March/Apr,I 2002 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 2. Footprints "impossibly wide" chest is in fact within normal human varia- Bigfoot tracks are the most recognizable evidence; of course, tion. They also disprove claims that the Patterson creature the animal's very name came from the size of the footprints it walks in a manner impossible for a person to duplicate. leaves behind. Unlike sightings, they are physical evidence: The film is suspect for a number of reasons. First, something (known animal, Bigfoot, or man) left the tracks. The Patterson told people he was going out with the express pur- real question is what the tracks are evidence of. In many cases, pose of capturing a Bigfoot on camera. In the intervening the answer is clear: they are evidence of hoaxing. thirty-five years (and despite dramatic advances in technology Contrary to many Bigfoot enthusiasts' claims, Bigfoot tracks and wide distribution of handheld camcorders), thousands of are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of varia- people have gone in search of Bigfoot and come back empty- tion (Dennett 1996). Some tracks have toes that are aligned, handed (or with little but fuzzy photos). Second, a known others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five Bigfoot track hoaxer claimed to have told Patterson exactly toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even where to go to see the Bigfoot on that day (Dennett 1996). six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the Third, Patterson made quite a profit from the film, including same unknown creature, or even species of creatures. publicity for a book he had written on the subject and an Not all prints found are footprints, though. In September organization he had started. 2000, a team of investigators from the Bigfoot Field Research Organization led an expedition near Mt. Adams in Washington state, finding the first Bigfoot "body print," which—if authentic—is arguably the most significant find in the past two decades. The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it laid on its side at the edge of a muddy bank and reached over to grab some bait. This of course raises the question as to why the animal would make such an odd approach to the food, instead of simply walking over to it and taking it. As the log of the expedition reads, "One explanation is immediately apparent—the animal did not want to leave tracks. ." (BFRO 2000). This explanation fails on its own logic: If the Bigfoot (or whatever it was) was so concerned about not leaving traces of its presence, why did it then leave a huge fifteen-square-foot imprint in the mud for the team to find?1 3. Recordings The Patterson Film The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot is the short 16 mm film taken in 196/ by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing (see figure 2). In many ways the veracity of the Patterson film is crucial, because the casts made from those tracks are as close to a gold standard as one finds in cryptozoology. Many in the Bigfoot community are adamant that the film is not—and, more important—cannot be a hoax. The question of whether the film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is Figure 2.

Load more